Butterworth v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Goverment & Anor [2015] EWHC 108 (Admin) (23 January 2015)

Butterworth v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Goverment & Anor [2015] EWHC 108 (Admin) (23 January 2015)

The inspector failed to provide an express and adequate explanation for departing from previous appeal decisions on similar proposals in the same terrace, thus neglecting the principle of consistency in planning decision-making and failing to give sufficient reasons, which caused substantial prejudice to the claimant.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 108 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Benjamin Butterworth; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: City of Westminster Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 January 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment on Application to Quash Planning Inspector's Decision
Outcome
Application allowed; inspector's decision quashed.
Legal Topics
Consistency in Planning Decisions, Duty to Give Reasons, Material Considerations in Planning, Heritage and Conservation Areas, Interpretation of Planning Policy
Planning Law Administrative Law Judicial Review Consistency in Planning Decisions Duty to Give Reasons Material Considerations in Planning Heritage and Conservation Areas Interpretation of Planning Policy

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Benjamin Butterworth

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

City of Westminster Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment on Application to Quash Planning Inspector's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the planning inspector failed to lawfully address previous appeal decisions and the principle of consistency in planning decision-making
  2. 2 Whether the inspector gave adequate and intelligible reasons for her decision

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector failed to provide an express and adequate explanation for departing from previous appeal decisions on similar proposals in the same terrace, thus neglecting the principle of consistency in planning decision-making and failing to give sufficient reasons, which caused substantial prejudice to the claimant.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; inspector's decision quashed.

Orders

  • The inspector's decision is quashed.
  • The appeal is remitted to the Secretary of State for redetermination.